Key Takeaways
- Comparing DSO offers works best when you break each proposal into cash at closing, rollover equity, and earnout, then view all components on an after-tax, time-adjusted basis instead of relying on headline totals.
- Two offers quoting the same multiple become comparable only when both are applied to the same normalized EBITDA figure after consistent add-back adjustments.
- Contract terms such as non-compete scope, termination rights, compensation formulas, and escrow amounts can erase headline value and should be lined up side by side before signing.
- Clinical autonomy promises carry weight only when written into the agreements, so decision rights over staffing, scheduling, and clinical protocols should appear clearly in writing.
- McLerran & Associates provides sell-side, dental-only advisory services that perform this exact comparison layer for practice owners navigating DSO offers.
Speak With McLerran & Associates
Before You Compare: Key Terms You Need To Know
A short shared vocabulary makes DSO offers easier to compare. These definitions cover components that appear in most DSO proposals:
- Cash at closing: The portion of the purchase price paid in cash on the day the deal closes. This is the only component that carries no contingency or illiquidity risk.
- Rollover equity: A portion of sale proceeds reinvested as ownership in the DSO or its holding company rather than taken as cash. Many buyers describe this as a “second bite of the apple” when the platform is later sold, but its value depends entirely on the DSO’s future performance and exit. A portion of a DSO deal can be paid in equity rather than cash, according to McLerran & Associates.
- Earnout: A contingent payment tied to future practice performance, such as production targets, EBITDA thresholds, or patient retention. The buyer pays this amount after closing only if those targets are met. If the DSO underperforms or is restructured during the earnout period, the deferred value may not materialize as expected.
- EBITDA and add-backs: EBITDA stands for Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization. DSOs use this profitability measure to value practices. Add-backs are discretionary, personal, or non-recurring expenses removed from the income statement to arrive at true normalized earnings.
- Multiple basis: The number multiplied by EBITDA to produce the enterprise value. Two offers quoting the same multiple on different EBITDA figures create very different prices.
- Joint-venture (JV) equity vs. holding-company equity: JV equity represents ownership in the local practice or regional entity. It typically comes with distributions and a higher floor but a lower ceiling. Holding-company equity is an interest in the broader DSO platform. It usually does not pay distributions but can have a higher ceiling if the platform exits at a premium multiple. The specific legal documents control the actual rights and risks regardless of how the structure is labeled.
- Payer formula: The post-close compensation structure. It defines whether pay is based on production or collections, what deductions apply, and how the formula interacts with the purchase price.
- Non-compete: A restriction on practicing within a defined geographic radius for a defined period after leaving. Non-competes tied to practice sales remain governed by state law following the permanent setting aside of the FTC’s proposed federal ban.
- Working agreement: The post-close employment contract specifying term length, compensation, scheduling, and termination rights.
How to Compare DSO Offers, Step by Step
- Break each DSO offer into its three payout components.
- Normalize EBITDA and the multiple basis.
- Compare compensation and the payer formula.
- Compare contract terms side by side.
- Compare clinical autonomy and operational support.
- Underwrite the DSO itself as an investment.
- Convert everything to an after-tax, time-adjusted view.
Step 1: Break Each DSO Offer Into Its Three Payout Components
Every DSO offer breaks down into three components: cash at closing, rollover equity, and earnout. The mix of those components can be as important as the total price. The guaranteed cash component should be separated from the contingent value represented by rollover equity and earnouts, since the advertised “total value” often blends guaranteed cash with contingent and future components.
Non-cash components carry illiquidity, contingency, and credit risk that cash does not. A headline total blends guaranteed cash with contingent and future value, so it can overstate what the seller actually receives at closing. Cash at closing is the only part of the price that does not depend on post-closing decisions.
Normalize across two offers by comparing the same component against its counterpart, such as cash against cash and equity against equity, instead of comparing totals. When equity appears in only one offer, treat that equity as a separate investment and assign it a risk-adjusted value before adding it to the comparison. Note whether equity is held at the JV level or the holding-company level, because the economic rights, distribution policy, and exit mechanics differ materially between the two.
Step 2: Normalize EBITDA and the Multiple Basis
Two offers quoting the same multiple on different EBITDA bases can produce very different economics. Buyers do not pay a multiple on a practice’s reported earnings but on adjusted EBITDA, and the adjustment negotiation is where deal value moves.
Common normalization adjustments can include replacing owner-dentist compensation above a market-rate associate replacement salary. They also include removing discretionary personal expenses run through the practice, excluding one-time costs, and normalizing rent to fair market value if the practice pays above-market to a related landlord. Each adjustment directly and proportionally affects transaction price once the multiple is applied.
Normalize both offers on one defensible EBITDA using the same add-back methodology. Present multiples as ranges driven by fundamentals such as practice size, doctor count, expandability, revenue durability, EBITDA level, and specialty. Two practices with similar EBITDA may receive materially different DSO valuations because the multiple depends on scale, specialty, provider dependence, payer mix, growth prospects, and market conditions.
Step 3: Compare Compensation And The Payer Formula
Post-close compensation often becomes the largest single line item over the life of the deal and the number the seller controls least. Most selling dentists stay on as clinical associates after closing, and their pay is usually a percentage of personal collections or production. Which base the contract uses matters, because the same percentage applied to gross production and to net collections produces very different income.
The formula’s base matters as much as the percentage. Production-based compensation may be calculated using gross production, adjusted production, or net production, and the contract’s definitions control the calculation because terminology is not uniform across practices. Lab fees, write-offs, refunds, and other deductions can reduce the effective compensation base significantly.
Normalize both offers by putting the formulas on the same production or collections base and the same deduction order. The goal at this step is side-by-side comparability rather than negotiation. For guidance on negotiating the formula itself, see How To Negotiate A DSO Offer For Your Dental Practice.
Step 4: Compare Contract Terms Side by Side
Contract terms can quietly erase headline value. A minimum 5-year working agreement is typical on a DSO deal, though a shorter work-back may be possible if the dentist has already worked mostly out of the chair. Deferred payments may depend on the dentist maintaining production for 36 months or longer.
Key terms to line up side by side across both offers include term length, non-compete scope and geographic radius, non-compete duration, termination provisions with and without cause, malpractice tail coverage responsibility, clawback provisions, and escrow or holdback amounts. DSOs frequently escrow a portion of the purchase price for 12 to 18 months after closing to cover potential indemnification claims.
Because these terms compound over a multi-year working agreement, a small difference in isolation, such as a slightly wider non-compete radius or a slightly longer escrow, can add up to significant economic exposure. Lining both offers up term by term is how you see that exposure before you sign.
Step 5: Compare Clinical Autonomy and Operational Support
Only written terms control the relationship after closing. Anything not written into the purchase agreement, employment agreement, or operating agreement is a conversation rather than a term.
Important areas to compare include decision rights over clinical matters, staffing authority, scheduling control, technology and systems support, compliance infrastructure, HR, payroll, and IT. Clinical autonomy after selling to a DSO depends entirely on the deal structure and the specific DSO. Some models preserve significant clinical decision-making at the practice level while others centralize more clinical protocols at the organization level.
Verification protects the seller more than acceptance. Ask each buyer what specifically changes, and when, and request those answers in writing. A useful due diligence question is: what decisions do the dentists in your existing acquired practices make, and what decisions have moved to corporate?
Step 6: Underwrite The DSO Itself As An Investment
Because a portion of a DSO deal can be paid in equity, the DSO’s financial health becomes a core part of the comparison. A higher EBITDA offer can look better than a lower EBITDA offer until the seller realizes part of the higher price consists of junior equity sitting beneath a heavily indebted parent company.
Ask structured underwriting questions for both buyers. Focus on who owns the DSO and who backs it financially. Review whether the whole company is profitable and whether revenue is still growing at offices it already owns. Consider the management team’s experience and the buyer’s track record with prior sellers, including whether previous dentists actually converted their equity into cash. Before trusting a buyer’s references, speak with doctors the buyer did not select, including those who left.
Many PE-backed dental platforms are several or more years into their hold periods, which can set up a wave of recapitalizations and secondary sales. Post-COVID DSO proliferation means many buyers are newer and less proven. Discount rollover equity for leverage, dilution, illiquidity, and restructuring risk, and apply the same underwriting questions to both buyers so the comparison stays symmetric.
For readers still deciding whether to go to market at all, the article titled Pros And Cons Of Selling Your Dental Practice To A DSO provides a useful starting framework.
Step 7: Convert Everything To An After-Tax, Time-Adjusted View
After-tax proceeds across 3-, 5-, 7-, and 10-year horizons can tell a very different story than headline totals. Much of a DSO deal can be treated at long-term capital gains rates rather than ordinary income. In a DSO asset sale, goodwill, typically a large portion of the total price in dental practice sales, is taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Equipment triggers depreciation recapture taxed as ordinary income, and non-compete payments are also taxed as ordinary income.
Federal law requires both buyer and seller to allocate the purchase price across seven asset classes under IRC §1060. Both sides report the same allocation on IRS Form 8594. A written allocation agreement between the parties is binding on both for tax purposes. The allocation negotiation directly affects after-tax proceeds and should be modeled before the letter of intent is signed.
Model both offers with identical assumptions, including the same tax rates, the same conservative recap assumptions, and the same baseline of keeping the practice for comparison. This article provides education rather than regulated tax or investment advice. Consult your own tax and legal advisors before making any decisions based on these mechanics.
A Worked Example: When the Higher Headline Offer Loses
To see how all seven steps work together, consider a hypothetical example in which the higher headline offer loses once every component is normalized. The following scenario is illustrative only and does not name or imply any real client, DSO, or acquirer.
Offer A values a multi-location dental practice group at a high enterprise value. The structure includes a modest amount of cash at close, a large block of holding-company equity, and a sizable seller note. The buyer is a newer, highly leveraged platform with limited operating history.
Offer B presents a lower headline value but pays a larger share in cash at closing. The structure includes JV-level equity that pays distributions and a smaller earnout with a pro-rata feature. The buyer is a well-established, well-backed platform with a documented track record of completed liquidity events for prior sellers.
At first glance, Offer A appears to win because of the higher headline number. After normalization, the picture can change. The holding-company equity in Offer A is discounted for leverage, illiquidity, and an uncertain exit, so its risk-adjusted value may sit well below its stated value. The earnout in Offer A is tied to production the seller no longer directs, so it should be probability-weighted rather than counted at face value.
Offer B’s JV equity comes with distributions and a more direct tie to practice-level performance, which can support a higher risk-adjusted value than holding-company equity. The earnout’s pro-rata provision means a near-miss still pays most of the amount, which supports a higher probability weighting. In an illustrative dental example, Offer B’s $1.2M earnout might be tied to the practice hitting a production target in each of the next 2 years. If the seller judges a 60% chance of hitting it, the expected earnout becomes about $720,000 rather than the full $1.2M.
Offer B, the lower headline, can produce a higher risk-adjusted outcome. The ranking can flip entirely because of structure and buyer quality, even when the multiple appears similar.
Common Challenges in Comparing DSO Offers and How to Fix Them
Several patterns tend to produce flawed comparisons:
- Comparing headline numbers instead of normalized ones. The fix is to decompose each offer into its three components and compare like with like before looking at totals.
- Mismatched EBITDA bases. If one buyer uses a more aggressive add-back methodology, the multiples become difficult to compare. Rebuild both on one defensible EBITDA before applying any multiple.
- Unverified buyer backing. Accepting a buyer’s description of its own financial health creates blind spots. Ask for documentation, speak with prior sellers the buyer did not select, and research the platform’s debt structure independently.
- Vague autonomy promises. Verbal commitments about clinical control, staffing, and scheduling do not carry legal weight. Get specific written terms or treat the promise as absent.
- Non-compete surprises. A non-compete measured from every office location covers a far larger market than one measured from a single primary office. Read the triggering language carefully before signing.
- Advisor coordination gaps. Tax, legal, and financial advisors who are not coordinating with each other can produce conflicting guidance. Assemble the team before the letter of intent arrives.
How to Tell Your DSO Offer Comparison Is Sound
A sound comparison shows several objective indicators:
- Both offers appear on the same after-tax, time-adjusted basis across multiple time horizons.
- Buyer backing and track record have been independently verified, not just accepted from the buyer’s own materials.
- Contract terms are lined up side by side, term by term, rather than summarized from memory.
- The chosen offer aligns with the owner’s stated goals, whether that means maximizing cash at closing, preserving clinical autonomy, protecting staff, or emphasizing long-term equity upside.
- The comparison includes the baseline of keeping the practice as a reference point.
Use checklists and milestone reviews at each step. A comparison that skips any of the seven steps above remains incomplete, and an incomplete comparison tends to favor the buyer.
Compare DSO Offers With An Advisor On Your Side
The largest headline number often fails to produce the best outcome. Normalizing DSO offers helps owners see which one actually pays more over time, and doing that normalization correctly usually requires finance-literate, dental-specific expertise on the seller’s side of the table.
McLerran & Associates is a dental-only sell-side advisor and advocate that performs this exact comparison layer, including after-tax, time-adjusted, multi-structure analysis, for practice owners navigating the biggest financial decision of their careers. The firm starts with CPA-led, diligence-grade EBITDA analysis and practice valuation. It then builds multi-year, multi-structure financial forecasts and cash-flow models across deal structures and 3-, 5-, 7-, and 10-year horizons. Finally, it runs a structured, auction-like bid process of approximately 45–60 days that typically generates around 10 offers from a vetted pool of DSO and private-equity buyers, with poorly run DSOs excluded. McLerran also provides quality-of-earnings defense through diligence so the agreed value holds when buyers scrutinize it.
Because McLerran works private-buyer and DSO paths in roughly equal measure, approximately 50/50, it produces a true side-by-side valuation rather than steering owners toward one lane. The firm is sell-side only, so its incentives align entirely with the seller. The numbers behind the approach include approximately 2,000 successful practice sales, roughly $2 billion in closed transaction volume, more than 10,000 dental practices evaluated, and a transaction rate of approximately 85–90% versus an industry norm closer to 35–40%.
Do-it-yourself sellers, local generalist brokers who know only one or two DSOs, multi-vertical advisors spread across healthcare verticals, and “free valuation” lead-generation firms often leave the comparison layer incomplete. That incomplete comparison is where value can be lost quietly.
Get Your Offers Compared Side By Side
Frequently Asked Questions
What Does “DSO” Mean Here?
In this article, DSO stands for Dental Support Organization, a company that provides non-clinical business support such as billing, HR, payroll, marketing, IT, and compliance to dental practices, often backed by private equity. This usage is entirely separate from Days Sales Outstanding, the accounting metric that measures how quickly a company collects receivables. The two terms share an abbreviation but have no other connection.
How Do I Compare Two DSO Offers When the Headline Numbers Differ?
Use the seven-step method above. In short, compare each payout component against its counterpart, normalize both offers to one EBITDA figure, risk-adjust the non-cash pieces, then convert everything to an after-tax, time-adjusted view across multiple horizons.
How Should Rollover Equity and Earnouts Be Weighted Against Cash at Closing?
Rollover equity and earnouts usually deserve a discount from face value. Rollover equity is a minority, illiquid investment in a private company whose exit the seller does not control, so it should be discounted for leverage, dilution, illiquidity, and the probability of a successful future exit. Earnouts are contingent on future performance metrics that the DSO controls after closing, including staffing, marketing, and operations decisions, so they should be probability-weighted based on how realistic the targets are and how much influence the seller retains over the outcomes. Cash at closing is the only component that carries no contingency. A sound comparison weights each component by its risk-adjusted value rather than its stated value.
Why Can the Same EBITDA Multiple Mean Different Things Across Two Offers?
The EBITDA figure to which the multiple is applied can differ significantly between buyers. One buyer may use a more aggressive set of add-backs, removing more discretionary expenses, normalizing owner compensation differently, or treating certain costs as non-recurring, which produces a higher EBITDA and a higher headline price even at the same multiple. Another buyer may apply a more conservative EBITDA definition. Two offers at “6x EBITDA” become comparable only when both are applied to the same normalized EBITDA figure. Rebuilding both offers on one defensible EBITDA is the practical way to make the multiples comparable.
Which Contract Terms Should I Line Up Side by Side?
The terms most likely to affect economic value include working agreement term length, post-close compensation formula and its base, such as production versus collections, deductions, and order of operations, non-compete geographic radius and duration, termination provisions with and without cause, malpractice tail coverage responsibility, clawback and indemnification provisions, escrow or holdback amounts and release conditions, and any earnout measurement definitions and dispute resolution mechanisms. Autonomy commitments, including clinical decision rights, staffing authority, and scheduling control, should also be captured in writing and compared, because verbal promises made before closing carry no legal weight unless incorporated into the agreements.
How Can I Tell Whether a DSO Is Well Backed?
Begin with the ownership and private equity backing by asking who invested, when, and at what stage. Then look at the platform’s operating performance, including whether the whole company is profitable and whether revenue is growing at offices it already owns rather than only through new acquisitions. Examine the debt structure by asking how much debt sits above the equity, when it matures, and whether the rates are fixed or floating. Ask whether previous sellers have actually converted their rollover equity into cash at a completed liquidity event. Speak with dentists the buyer did not select as references, including those who have left the platform. A well-backed DSO with a track record of completed exits and stable doctor retention can be a materially different counterparty than a newer platform carrying heavy debt with no prior liquidity events.
Can a DSO Offer Be Compared to a Private-Buyer Offer?
A DSO offer can be compared directly to a private-buyer offer and that comparison can be very useful. A private-buyer, or doctor-to-doctor, offer typically delivers 100% cash at closing with a short transition period, while a DSO offer typically delivers a higher headline number with a portion in equity and earnout and a multi-year working agreement. The comparison requires converting both to an after-tax, time-adjusted basis, accounting for the tax treatment of each component, the time value of deferred payments, the risk-adjusted value of equity and earnouts, and the opportunity cost of the post-close employment obligation. In some cases, the private-buyer offer’s all-cash structure can outperform a higher DSO headline once those adjustments are applied.
When Should I Bring in an Advisor?
Advisor involvement works best before the letter of intent is signed, ideally before any offer arrives. The LOI stage is where seller leverage often peaks. Once exclusivity begins, the buyer has 60 to 120 days to re-price through diligence while the seller cannot negotiate with other buyers. An advisor who is engaged before offers arrive can run a competitive process that generates multiple offers simultaneously, normalize EBITDA before buyers set their own anchor, and defend the valuation through diligence so the agreed value holds at closing. Assembling tax, legal, and financial advisors after the LOI arrives, rather than before, is one of the most common and costly mistakes sellers make.
Speak With An Advisor About Your Offers
